oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
William R. Furlong, Chief of USN BuOrd, you've heard of Furlongs per fortnight? A very slow coach.
Vought TBU-1 was apparently faster than a TBF!
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
First, I would take the Naval chief of armament and march him to a firing squad for criminal incompetence.
Ok. Germany will develop the He-118 as a CV capable dive / torpedo bomber during the 1930s. The He-112 will be developed as a CV fighter aircraft. The low stall speed of these aircraft should work well on an aircraft carrier.
1940 Germany now has the most capable CV air fleet in the world. And still no operational aircraft carriers.
Hercules of 1940 was managing 1400 (87 oct fuel) -1500 HP, R-2600 was good for 1600 HP (1700 in 1941). I'd say that's decent power.
My plane of choice for 1940/41 would have wing area of some 350-400 sq ft, Fowler flaps, 35-40 st long, with the most powerful engine available, no bomb bay (to save on weight complexity).
Germany would almost certainly license build it at Blohm Voss. That way communications equipment, AA, auxiliary machinery etc. would all be German navy standard.
Graf Zeppelin had four shafts, each with a four bladed propellers 14.4 feet (4.4 meters) across. Each shaft was powered by turbines built by Brown, Boveri Co, producing 50,000 HP each for a total of 200,000 HP. At the time of her design there were the most powerful turbines ever built for a European ship. The two turbines powering the inner shafts shared a turbine room, while the ones on the outer shafts were separated into their own spaces. Steam was produced by 16 La Mont water-tube boilers operating at 75 atmospheres and 840 degrees F (450 degrees C). The boilers were separated into four boiler rooms. At 300 revolutions per minute, the plant was expected to drive the ship to 34.5 knots as designed. The propulsion plant weighed in at 3,850 tons, giving a power to weight ratio of about 42.4 pounds (19.25 kg) per horsepower.
Electrical power was provided by a variety of systems. 5 diesel generators of 350 kW each, 5 turbo generators of 460 kW each, and 1 turbogenerator of 230 kW with an attached 200 kVa alternating current generator were provided. Total output was 4,280 kW at 220 volts.
In addition to her main propulsion system, Graf Zeppelin was fitted with two Voith-Schneider steering/ propulsion systems. Common today on tugboats and service craft because of their ability to direct thrust in any direction, they were rather new at the time. The systems were electric of 330 kW each, mounted one in front of the other at the forward part of the ship. They were contained in pods recessed into vertical shafts, to be extended down into the water when needed, and could move the ship forward or backwards at a speed of 4.5 knots on their own in calm water with no wind.
We still have a big spread in time here. The 50th 1700hp R-2600 wasn't built until Sept 1941. While that may mean your plane makes the very end of 1941 it missed all of 1940 and a good part of 1941.
Your plane of choice uses a wing smaller than either the TBF or SB2C while using the same engine, combines both roles and yet goes into service 1- 1 1/2 years earlier?
Skipping the bomb bay may help but it speaks to the expected performance. External ordnance creates a great deal of drag. Drag goes up with the square of the speed. Power needed actually goes up with cube of the speed. A plane with cruise of 150mph may be able to get away with hanging the bombs/torp outside and still get a decent range. Trying for a 212 mph cruise doubles the drag. If the plane needed 600hp to cruise at 150mph it would need 1404hp to cruise at 212 mph. At what point does the improved streamlining of the bomb bay pay off in better cruise speed and range?
Bomb bay won't do much for a Swordfish
while I was there I would also get a type 91 for our destroyers, and copy them.
What about a modified FW 190A-4/U8? It could do both the torpedoing and dive bombing, the landing gear would have to be improved for carrier landing though.
Hello
one plus for internal bomb bay was less drag during outward journey, for ex the cruise speed of SB2C was near of that of fighters, so fighters didn't need need zig zag on the way to target, or if the target was far out to fly separately and hopefully met their charges near the target, a big tactical plus.
Juha
What about a modified FW 190A-4/U8? It could do both the torpedoing and dive bombing, the landing gear would have to be improved for carrier landing though.
I have wondered a long time about a attack version of the Grumman F6F fighter.
Instead of the R-2800 two stage engine in the fighter, install a single stage R-2800 engine optimized for low altitude. The empty weight would be less due to not installling the intercoolers and their ductwork associated with the two stage high altitude supercharger system. I would guess a F6F could carry a torpedo every bit as well as a Fw190A-4/U8. I was thinking more day attack, but the -3N and -5N versions had radar, though not the second crewman for the radar. Might be able to find space for a second crewman behind and below the pilot same as some of the AD Skyraiders. Piper106